Committee action: The House Industry, Business and Labor Committee adopted an amendment to House Bill 1454 that would bar state agencies and political subdivisions from requiring an individual to take, receive or disclose whether they have taken a “medical product” unless the person was first notified and given an opportunity to decline and failed to exercise that opportunity.

Why it matters: The amendment, offered by Representative Kent Koppelman and seconded by Representative Schatz, attempts to write an opt-out requirement into law for state-mandated medical products. The committee then paused further action on the bill after the Office of the Attorney General raised legal and public-health concerns about the amendment’s breadth and lack of exceptions.

What the amendment would do: Representative Koppelman told the committee the language was intended to “get to the heart” of the sponsor’s goal while reducing objections, placing the onus on individuals to opt out after being notified rather than on government to mandate medical products. He moved the amendment and it was adopted by voice vote.

Legal and public-health concerns: Allison Hicks, general counsel to the Public Health Division of the Department of Health and Human Services, told the committee the division “does still have a lot of concerns about this bill.” Hicks said the amendment’s definitions and phrasing raise immediate operational conflicts because the language appears to cover all “medical products” and “state agencies and political subdivisions.” Hicks gave specific examples:
- Emergency medical services treating unconscious patients could be covered by the bill’s prohibition but would be unable to meet the notice-and-decline requirement for an unconscious person.
- Law enforcement use of naloxone (Narcan) after an officer receives a needle stick could be impeded if disclosure or prior notice were required.
- Corrections and state hospitals that administer court-ordered medical treatment could be precluded from following court orders because affected individuals may lack the capacity to decline.

Hicks also flagged the bill’s use of “disclose” as problematic, saying it could impede normal workplace protections (for example, protecting first responders who need to know certain vaccination or immunity status after a needle stick). She warned the amendment would “hamper the ability of the department to address a public health emergency,” citing scenarios such as managing active tuberculosis cases where quarantine or forced treatment typically depend on public-health authority and, in some cases, court orders.

Committee response and next steps: Representative Koppelman said adding an exception for “unless court-ordered” could be an easy fix and asked if removing the disclosure sentence would address some concerns. Hicks offered to consult with her client and pull the legislative history of the health officer’s powers and the orders issued during the COVID response timeline. The committee agreed to hold the bill over for further work and for Hicks to return with additional language or analysis.

Context and background: Committee members noted that current state law does not generally require adult vaccination and that school immunization statutes already include exemptions. Hicks cautioned that prior special-session language related to COVID may no longer be operative. Committee members asked for a summary of what was authorized through the governor and joint command during the COVID response; Hicks said she would gather legislative history and a synopsis of orders.

Ending: The amendment to HB1454 was adopted by the committee, but members agreed to hold the bill for further legal review to resolve the department’s concerns and potential exceptions before advancing it.

Quotes (selected):
“Allison Hicks, Office of the Attorney General and general counsel to the Public Health Division: ‘…this is just very problematic because of the broad nature and the broad strokes of it. The department and myself individually as their general counsel, I have significant concerns about the language.’”

“Representative Kent Koppelman: ‘When we were in the hearing, many objected to the language that was in here… I think what the bill sponsor is trying to do here is say, you know, the state should not be the muscle behind forcing something…’”